For the United States, managing global interests often resembles juggling multiple burners on a stove, turning up the heat on one while lowering it on another, and letting some simmer in the background.
Following the so-called Gaza ceasefire, America swiftly redirected its focus to the central and most critical burner: China, in the context of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. President Donald Trump did this by sending a political signal, suggesting that the U.S. might consider sending Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine just before a meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House.However, Trump later withdrew the proposal, leaving Zelensky frustrated.
On October 19, the Financial Times revealed that Zelensky was pressured to accept Russian President Vladimir Putin’s territorial demands, specifically to cede the Donbass region to Russia or face severe consequences warning that Putin said he would “destroy” Ukraine if it did not agree.”
The Financial Times further reported:
“Trump’s belligerent repetition of Putin’s rhetoric on Friday dashed hopes among many of Ukraine’s European allies that he could be convinced to increase support to Kyiv.,,Three other European officials briefed on the White House discussions confirmed that Trump spent much of the meeting lecturing Zelensky as it descended into a “shouting match” with Trump “cursing all the time”… echoing Putin’s arguments about the conflict and urging him to accept the Russian proposal.” (20/10/25). At one point, “the US president threw Ukraine’s maps of the battlefield to one side… Trump said he was ‘sick’ of seeing the map of the frontline of Ukraine again and again.” (20/10/25)
Trump’s ultimatum to Zelensky, which he has issued before, aligns with a broader, consistent analysis: despite Trump’s public flip-flopping on Ukraine and seemingly contradictory statements, the U.S. maintains a clear and adaptable policy toward Ukraine, one intricately linked to China and European security dynamics.
The American policy on Ukraine appears to pursue three primary objectives:
1. Divert Russia away from China.
Pulling Putin closer weakens China’s geopolitical leverage, thereby preserving American dominance over the international system and limiting China’s political, diplomatic, strategic, and military influence.
2. Exacerbate European insecurity.
Heightening fears of Russian expansion through Ukraine keeps European nations divided, financially strained, and politically unstable, especially under Trump’s pressure on Europe to bear the post-conflict financial burden of protecting Ukraine.
3. Sustain NATO’s leadership and relevance.
Maintaining a persistent Russian threat on Europe’s borders justifies NATO’s existence and pushes member states to increase their defense spending from 3% to 5% of GDP.
Our analysis suggests Trump and Putin seems to have struck a secret deal during their recent meeting in Alaska, with Trump now maneuvering to pressure Zelensky and European leaders into acquiescing to this undisclosed understanding.
With Trump refusing to provide any American security guarantees for Ukraine, the situation has ensnared Europe in a complex political, economic, and security quagmire, which they have tried to address through proposals such as European collective defense and using Russia’s frozen assets to fund Ukraine’s military efforts.
According to the Financial Times: “Zelenskyy was very negative” following the meeting, one official noted, adding that European leaders were “not optimistic but pragmatic with planning next steps.” (20/10/25) Whilst Trump confirmed his position during a Fox News interview on October 19, where he stated that Putin “is going to take something, he’s won certain property.”
Be the first to comment on "Zelensky Under Pressure: How Trump’s China Strategy Reframes U.S. Ukraine Policy"